Matt G Miller Region II Management Coordinator Department of Fish and Game

RC 3, Tab 6

Release Mortality UCI and LCI (proposals 47-53)

Prohibit release of fish Prohibit use of bait Prohibit use of barbed hooks Require circle hooks

Sport fishing Why anglers release Factors in release mortality Studies Regulations

2

Best Practices

Characteristics of Alaskan Fisheries Statutory Definitions – AS 16.05.940

(30) “sport fishing” the taking of or attempting to take for personal use, and not for sale

or barter, any fresh water, marine, or anadromous fish by hook and line with the line attached to a pole or rod which is held in the hand or closely attended, or other means defined by the board of fish

3

AS 16.05.020 Manage, protect, maintain, improve and extend the fish,

game and aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the economy and general well-being of the state;

Sport Fishing Not for sale or barter Value in opportunity Specific gear Small numbers of fish per individual Number of participants

4

Sport Effort and Harvest Angler Participation

2006-2012 (annual average) Alaska 458,300 anglers 2,168,400 angler days Southcentral 321,400 anglers 1,500,200 angler days

Finfish Harvest

2006-2012 (annual average) Alaska 2,320,900 fish harvest Southcentral 1,557,000 fish harvest

5

Release Southcentral, Alaska 2012 (SWHS)

Finfish Caught 3,523,800 fish Harvested 1,447,900 (41%)

Salmon Caught 1,754,000 salmon Harvested 871,000 salmon (50%)

Harvest by species Sharks 2% Resident Species (rainbow, char, grayling) 5% Chum salmon 8% Sockeye & coho salmon 66%

6

Why Release? Catch & Release Release

Value in opportunity for success Gear and methods Target species Regulations Residency

7

Research

8

Hook Days Number of Mortality Study Species Location Gear / Hook Method Type Held Captures Rate Author

Surrey Area, 1982 - 1995 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 306 0.3% B.C., MELP Staff Chilliwack River, 1999 - 2000 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 226 0.9% Nelson et al., 2001

Steelhead B.C. Flies Rod & Reel < 1.0% Hooton, 2001 Kamloops Area, 1982 - 1995 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 436 1.6% B.C., MELP Staff

Steelhead B.C. Artificial

Lures Rod & Reel 3.0% Hooton, 2001 Vancouver Is. In 1980 - 1987 Steelhead B.C. Bait / Single Rod & Reel Barbed & Barbless 2 3,715 3.4% Hooton, 1987

Keogh River in 1980-1985 Steelhead B.C. Artifical

Lures Rod & Reel 2 335 3.8% Hooton, 1987 Somass River, 1988; Winter Run Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 195 4.1% Lirette, 1988 Surrey Area, 1982 - 1995 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 201 4.3% B.C., MELP Staff Skeena River, 1995 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 4.6% Thomas, 1995

Skeena River, 1995 Steelhead B.C. Artifical

Lures Rod & Reel 4.6% Thomas, 1995 Keogh River in 1980-1985 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel Barbless 2 335 5.6% Hooton, 1987 Somass River, 1988; Summer Run Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 76 7.9% Lirette, 1988 Campbell River, 1989 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 69 8.7% Lirette, 1989

Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel 7 - 10% Hooton, 2001 Keogh River in 1980-1985 Steelhead B.C. Bait Rod & Reel Barbed 2 335 9.1% Hooton, 1987 Steelhead WA Bait Rod & Reel 390 11.0% Mongillo, 1984

9

Study Species Size (mm)

range / mean Location Method / gear Hook type Days held

Number of captures

Number of deaths

Mortality rate Author

ADF&G; Anadromous Dolly Varden AK unbaited / lure Treble 60 0 0.0% DeCicco, 1994 ADF&G; Anadromous Dolly Varden AK unbaited / lure Single 120 2 1.7% DeCicco, 1994 ADF&G; Anadromous Dolly Varden AK bait Single 59 1 1.7% DeCicco, 1994 ADF&G; Anadromous Dolly Varden AK bait Treble 60 2 3.3% DeCicco, 1994 ADF&G; Char & Grayling Arctic char AK unbaited Treble Lure 2 60 0 0.0% McKinley, 1993 ADF&G; Char & Grayling Arctic char AK unbaited Single 2 60 0 0.0% McKinley, 1993

Various Lures & Temp brook trout 339 MI lures Treble / Barbed 2 126 0.0% Nuhfer and Alexander, 1992

brook trout 203 MD flies Single 2 130 0 0.0% Pavol, 1996 brown trout 265 MD flies Single 2 69 0 0.0% Pavol, 1996 brown trout 91 - 391 lures and flies Single /Treble 1 107 0.9% Shetter and Allison, 1958 brook trout 122 - 241 flies Single 7 - 10 484 1.7% Shetter and Allison, 1958

Various Lures & Temp brook trout 339 MI lures Single / Barbed 2 251 2.4% Nuhfer and Alexander, 1992

brown trout 174 MD lures Treble 2 40 1 2.5% Pavol, 1996 brook trout 74 - 300 lures and flies Single /Treble 1 806 2.6% Shetter and Allison, 1955

ADF&G; Char & Grayling Arctic char AK bait Treble 2 60 2 3.3% McKinley, 1993 ADF&G; Char & Grayling Arctic char AK bait Single 2 60 2 3.3% McKinley, 1993

brook trout 76- 251 lures Single 1 23 4.4% Shetter and Allison, 1955

Various Lures & Temp brook trout 339 MI lures Treble / Barbed 2 253 8.3% Nuhfer and Alexander, 1992

brook trout 175 MD lures Treble 2 197 17 8.6% Pavol, 1996 ADF&G; Char & Grayling Arctic char AK bait Treble Lure 2 60 6 10.0% McKinley, 1993

Temp. 10 - 18 C brown trout 135 - 228 bait Single 12 490 13.5% Hulbert & Engstrom, 1980

brook trout 122 - 241 bait Single 7 - 10 550 37.5% Shetter and Allison, 1955 brook trout 76- 251 bait Single 1 45 48.9% Shetter and Allison, 1955

10

cutthroat 211 MT flies Single /Treble 30 315 0.3% Dotson, 1982 cutthroat WY 72,698 236 0.3% Schill et al., 1986 cutthroat 356 WY lures Barbed Treble 10 113 3 2.7% Hunsaker et al., 1970 cutthroat 356 WY Artificial flies Barbless Single 10 60 2 3.3% Hunsaker et al., 1970 cutthroat 356 WY Artificial flies Barbed Single 10 75 3 4.0% Hunsaker et al., 1970 cutthroat 227 MT lures Barbed Single 30 630 4.3% Dotson, 1982 cutthroat 251 - 424 WY bait / lure Single /Treble 10 409 5% Hunsaker et al., 1970

Temperature cutthroat 274 - 442 WY lures Treble 30 352 18 5.1% Marnell & Hunsaker, 1970

Temperature / Fatigue cutthroat 274 - 442 WY lures Treble 30 300 5.5% Marnell & Hunsaker, 1970

cutthroat 356 WY lures Barbless Treble 10 100 6 6.0% Hunsaker et al., 1970 Various Temperatures cutthroat CA lures Treble Barbless 4 175 21 12.0% Titus & Vanicek, 1988 Various Temperatures cutthroat CA lures Treble Barbed 4 156 27 17.3% Titus & Vanicek, 1988 Various Temperatures cutthroat CA lures Single Barbless 4 202 39 19.3% Titus & Vanicek, 1988

cutthroat 356 WY bait; combined est. Single 10 161 78 48.4% Hunsaker et al., 1970 cutthroat 251 - 424 WY bait Single /Treble 10 100 73.0% Hunsaker et al., 1970

Anadromous Cutthroat cutthroat WA Spinner with bait Treble 3 38 10.5% Pauley and Thomas, 1993 Anadromous Cutthroat cutthroat WA Spinner No bait Single 3 44 15.9% Pauley and Thomas, 1993 Anadromous Cutthroat cutthroat WA Spinner No bait Treble 3 42 23.8% Pauley and Thomas, 1993 Anadromous Cutthroat cutthroat WA bait Single 3 178 40% to 58% Pauley and Thomas, 1993

rainbow 193 - 344 B.C. lures Treble 2 145 4 2.8% Stringer, 1967 Single vs. Treble rainbow 173 - 302 CO lures Treble 3 495 17 3.4% Klein, 1965

rainbow CO flies Single 21 457 3.9% Schisler and Bergersen, 1996

rainbow 79 - 272 lures and flies Single /Treble 1 346 5.2% Shetter & Allison, 1958 Single vs. Treble rainbow 173 - 302 CO lures Single 3 505 28 5.5% Klein, 1965

rainbow 193 - 344 B.C. flies Single 2 190 15 7.9% Stringer, 1967 Temp. 12 -17 C rainbow 471 flies Single / Barbed 1 - 2 65 20.0% Faccin, 1983

rainbow CO Artificial bait Single; Fished actively 21 505 21.6% Schisler and Bergersen, 1996

rainbow CO Artificial bait Single; Fished passively 21 511 32.1% Schisler and Bergersen, 1996

Deeply Hooked Fish rainbow 145 WI bait Hooks Left in & held 120 200 69 34.5% Mason and Hunt, 1967 rainbow 193 - 344 B.C. bait / worm Single 2 239 86 36.0% Stringer, 1967

Temp 8.3 - 12.3 C rainbow 155 - 272 bait 10 18 39.0% Barwick, 1985 Deeply Hooked Fish rainbow 145 WI bait Hooks removed & held 120 200 177 88.5% Mason and Hunt, 1967

Study Species Size (mm)

range / mean Location Method / gear Hook type Days held

Number of captures

Number of deaths

Mortality rate Author

11

Meta-Analysis resident trout Various flies 10 Studies Analyzed 3.8% Taylor and White, 1992

Meta-Analysis resident trout Various lures 11 Studies Analyzed 4.9% Taylor and White, 1992

Meta-Analysis resident trout Various bait 7 Studies Analyzed 31.4% Taylor and White, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various flies Barbless 1.8% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various lures and flies Barbless 2.2% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various lures Barbless 3.0% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various flies Barbed & Barbless 3.3% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various flies Barbed 3.9% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various lures and flies Barbed 5.9% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various lures Barbed & Barbless 6.6% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various lures Barbed 6.7% Wright, 1992 Compilation, Res. & Anad. trout Various bait Barbed & Barbless 30 - 50% Wright, 1992

Study Species

Size (mm) range / mean Location Method / gear Hook type

Days held

Number of

captures Number

of deaths Mortality

rate Author

Alaska salmon studies

Little Susitna coho (1993) 384 coho in estuary 77 coho above the estuary Dipnetted coho above weir

12

69% mortality 12% mortality 1% mortality

6-11% mortality 22-27% mortality

Kenai kings (1992)

Sampled in lower Kenai Radio telemetry 255 kings sampled from anglers

Gill/bleeding

Unalakleet coho (2002) 68 coho in lower river No significant relationship between

mortality and distance upstream

15% mortality

13

Species of fish Coho

Water temperature Landing time Time out of water Hook placement

Bait

Factors in release mortality

Prohibiting release Only way to prevent release-related mortality Impose a harvest-centric ethic on sport fisheries

Unknown effect on sport harvest Substantial effect on sport fishing

Keep species that were not targeted Keep fish they couldn’t eat Regulatory conundrum

Existing regulations

14

To barb or not to barb… Handling time Regulations in other states Ability to land fish Cost to anglers Enforcement Reduction in release mortality

15

To barb or not to barb… Handling time

16

Bloom 2010, CA Dept. Fish and Game Difference in handling time- 7.2 seconds “difference is not likely biologically significant”

Significant factors Size and species of fish Method (landing net) Angler’s experience

To barb or not to barb… Regulations in other states

17

Washington, Oregon, California Washington Oregon- Columbia River Management Washington- tied to C&R trout fisheries

Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana No barbless regulations

Data on barbless is inconclusive Not needed with other terminal restrictions

Nevada, Idaho Western region only in Trophy waters Paired with C&R trout fisheries since 1960

To barb or not to barb… Ability to land fish

Bloom 2010, CA Dept. Fish and Game

18

Management Implications Reduced angler catch rates and decreased

angler satisfaction Affected novice anglers more Allocative

To barb or not to barb… Cost to anglers

Local shops Catalogs

No barbless, or few at higher cost 8 barbless/90 styles

Enforcement Schill and Kline, 1995

“75% of violations were written to anglers attempting to comply with barbless regulations. If the regulation violated has little or no demonstrated biological value, maintenance of such restrictions may be self-defeating for regulatory agencies”

19

To barb or not to barb…

20

To barb or not to barb… Reduction in release mortality

Data are inconclusive

21

Best Practices Regulation & Education Regulations

Don’t remove fish from the water Harvest and done Bait and hook restrictions

Education Barbless Don’t exhaust the fish Revive before release

22

In Summary

Proposals before the board Sport fishing Why anglers release Factors in release mortality Studies Regulations

23

24